STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME LIMITS OF RULE 5.1(c) AND EXCLUDING TIME

LAUREL BEELER, Magistrate Judge.

On May 7, 2013, the parties in this case appeared before the Court for an initial appearance on a Complaint. The parties submitted a Stipulation and Proposed Order Extending the Time Limits of Rule 5.1(c) and Excluding Time until May 30, 2013, and the Court granted that request. The parties then submitted a second Stipulation and Proposed Order Extending the Time Limits of Rule 5.1(c) and Excluding Time until June 14, 2013, and the Court granted that request. The parties now submit a third Stipulation and Proposed Order Extending the Time Limits of Rule 5.1(c) and Excluding Time until June 26, 2013.

Pursuant to Rule 5.1(d), the defendant consents to this extension of time and waiver, and the parties represent that good cause exists for the extension, including the effective preparation of counsel. The requested continuance is needed to allow counsel sufficient time to review discovery that the government has provided and to research case law related to the charges against the defendant, and the failure to grant the continuance requested would unreasonably deny counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. Therefore, the parties agree that the Court shall order that the Speedy Trial clock shall be tolled for the reasons stated above from June 14, 2013 to June 26, 2013, and that the arraignment/preliminary hearing be continued until June 26, 2013. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv).

SO STIPULATED.

[PROPOSED] ORDER

For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that the extension of time limits applicable under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.1(c) from June 14, 2013 through June 26, 2013 is warranted and that a continuance of the defendant's arraignment/preliminary hearing to June 26, 2013 is warranted; that exclusion of this period from the time limits applicable under 18 U.S.C. § 3161 is warranted; that the ends of justice served by the continuance under Rule 5.1 outweigh the interests of the public and the defendant in the prompt disposition of this criminal case; and that the failure to grant the requested exclusion of time would deny counsel for the defendant and for the government the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, and would result in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).

IT IS SO ORDERED.